New Executive Order Focuses on Private Equity Ownership of Single-Family Homes and Sets Stage for Antitrust Enforcement Action

On January 20, 2026, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) titled Stopping Wall Street from Competing with Main Street Homebuyers. It seeks to curb the role of large institutional investors, such as private equity (PE) firms, in the single-family housing market. Key provisions direct federal agencies to take steps to prevent financial firms from acquiring homes, to “preserve the supply of single-family homes for American families and increase the paths to homeownership.” Central measures include directing the Department of Housing and Urban Development and other federal agencies to issue guidance preventing financing practices that facilitate bulk purchases of single-family homes by institutional buyers and promoting sales to individual owners through “first-look” programs and other policies. The EO also calls for legislation codifying the EO’s goal of ensuring that single-family homes are acquired by families rather than investors.

One provision of the EO with potentially far-reaching consequences for PE firms with residential real estate holdings instructs the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to review “substantial acquisitions, including series of acquisitions, by large institutional investors of single-family homes in local single-family housing markets for anti-competitive effects and prioritize enforcement of the antitrust laws, as appropriate, against coordinated vacancy and pricing strategies by large institutional investors in local single-family home rental markets.”

This language signals that federal antitrust enforcers will scrutinize bulk acquisitions of single-family homes by PE firms and other large institutional investors, not only for their potential effects on local housing markets, but also for alleged coordinated conduct relating to rental pricing or vacancy rates. The EO expressly contemplates that “series of acquisitions” will be reviewed, meaning that the agencies will consider the cumulative impact of multiple acquisitions over time. This focus mirrors recent antitrust enforcement attention to PE firms’ “rollup” strategies in sectors such as healthcare. At the same time, the EO’s emphasis on potential coordination in home rental pricing echoes the DOJ’s recent scrutiny of alleged “algorithmic collusion,” or software-assisted price-fixing, in multi-family rental markets, the DOJ’s recent settlements involving the use of rent-setting algorithms, and a recent law adopted in New York state that bans certain uses of pricing algorithms to help set residential rents. This suggests that enforcers may increasingly apply similar theories to portfolios of single-family homes.

For PE firms with significant holdings in residential real estate, particularly in smaller geographic markets, the EO increases the likelihood of potential antitrust investigations or enforcement actions. In practice, this could mean compulsory document requests, depositions, and enforcement suits challenging acquisition strategies or alleged coordination between firms. Private antitrust litigation could also follow on the heels of federal investigations or suits.

Recent precedent shows that sector-specific Presidential directives often lead to real enforcement activity. For example, as Foley reported last November,  the DOJ initiated several investigations into the meatpacking industry following social media posts by President Trump urging the DOJ to “immediately begin an investigation” into the major meat processors. Institutional investors in the single-family home market should expect a similar reaction to this EO.

PE firms and other institutional investors in the single-family home market should assess their acquisition strategies and portfolio concentration, as well as any communications, practices, or uses of pricing algorithms that could be construed as coordination on pricing or vacancy rates. Firms are also well-advised to consult antitrust counsel to conduct proactive risk reviews, ensure robust compliance programs, and prepare for the possibility of investigations, enforcement actions, and private antitrust litigation.

Foley & Lardner has a wealth of experience guiding clients through antitrust investigations and litigation alike. If you have any questions about the implications of these developments on your company, please contact the authors of this article or your Foley & Lardner attorney.